John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join with Senators Graham, Hagel, DeWine, Dodd, Biden, Breaux, and Thompson today in introducing this important legislation to reauthorize the Andean Trade Preference Act. This legislation will renew and expand duty-free tariff treatment to our important trade partners: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. I would like to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of acting on this legislation, because the existing Andean Trade Preference Act will expire on December 4. Having recently visited the region, I would like to assure my colleagues that this program plays an important role in aiding the economic development of our Andean allies, and stabilizing fragile democracies in the region. The existing Andean Trade Preference Act has helped two-way trade between the United States and the region to nearly double in the 1990s. During this time, U.S. exports grew 65 percent and U.S. imports increased 98 percent. In addition, the program is responsible for an increase in industrial and agricultural imports from the Andean beneficiary countries. This economic diversification is beneficial for economic growth in the Andean region, and will reduce pressure for the citizens of the region to become involved in the drug trade. However, this program must be expanded to be truly effective. According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service, only 10 percent of the imports from the Andean region enter the United States exclusively under the provisions of the existing Andean Trade Preference Act. I join with my colleagues in supporting Senator Graham's legislation, because it plays an important first step in the reauthorization process by extending to the Andean region similar trade benefits to what the Congress voted to give the Caribbean region last year. During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Ambassador Zoellick called for a ``renewed and robust Andean Trade Preference Act.'' I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will consider the United States Trade Representative's recommendations, and those of our allies in the Andean region, who have proven that they need expanded duty and quota-free treatment for their imports. Many of us have had the benefit of traveling to Colombia over the past few months to observe the American-funded drug eradication efforts there, and to discuss Plan Colombia with the region's leaders. During my visit to Colombia in February, President Andres Pastrana made clear that liberalized trade with the United States, in the form of renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act, was a critical pillar of his strategy to promote alternatives to the drug trade in his country. Plan Colombia is premised upon reducing the power and allure of the narco-traffickers and their rebel supporters who threaten America's interest in a democratic, prosperous, and stable Western Hemisphere. While the military component of America's assistance package remains controversial at home, expanding our trade relationship with Colombia, a nation of industrious people and vast natural resources, is a logical extension of our compelling interest in strengthening the Colombian state and providing its people with rewarding economic opportunities in the legitimate economy. It is also important to view renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act in terms of our larger trade agenda with our Latin American neighbors. Early reauthorization of this program will show our trade partners that the United States is seriously engaged in strengthening our trade relations and promoting interdependence in the region. It is my belief that the United States should pursue four policies this year in order to accomplish our mutually beneficial trade objectives with our Latin American partners: 1. Early renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act; 2. Passage of trade promotion authority for the President; 3. Completion of negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile; and 4. Accomplishment of serious progress on the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations in order to meet an early conclusion of these negotiations in 2003. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation in a timely manner before the December expiration. It is in our nation's economic and national security interests to reauthorize and expand trade benefits for the Andean region.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 107th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Hollings, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Hollings, in introducing the Aviation Competition Restoration Act. This legislation would give the Department of Transportation additional authority to review airline industry mergers and to enhance competition and access at dominated hub airports. If Congress does not act quickly to address the problems of industry consolidation and the reduction in meaningful competition, consumers will suffer as air fares inevitably increase and choices decline. Not since deregulation of the airline industry have we faced such a critical point in the history of air transportation in this country. We are closer than ever to seeing an industry totally dominated by three mega-airlines. Last year, United proposed purchasing US Airways. Earlier this year, American Airlines announced that it would purchase a faltering TWA and join with United to carve up US Airways. Since then, Delta and Continental have talked about some type of combination if the other mergers occur. These developments do not bode well for consumers. I recognize that there may be some benefits to these mergers. But the harm that will be inflicted on consumers far outweighs any gains. As the number of competitors dwindles, air travelers are almost certain to get squeezed. The Commerce Committee has held numerous hearings since the first deal was announced. I continue to believe that these proposals are not good for the consumer. Last year, the Commerce Committee approved a Senate Resolution expressing deep concern about the proposed United-US Airways deal. Expressions of concern are no longer enough. We must act to ensure that the Executive Branch has the tools to thoroughly evaluate these proposals and their effect on competition. We must also give them the tools to effectuate a more competitive environment. The Airline Competition Restoration Act would give the Department the authority to ensure that carriers have competitive access to critical airport markets by reallocating gates, facilities and other assets used or controlled by an air carrier prior to approving a merger or in other non-competitive circumstances. This bill is just one piece of a potential solution to the tremendous problems that air travelers face on a daily basis. More people are flying now than ever before. That means that more people are affected by the lack of capacity, antiquated air traffic control, and over scheduling that continue to plague aviation travel. We had 674 million people fly last year. That number is expected to reach one billion within 10 years. One billion air travelers in a system that has basically reached gridlock today should be of great concern to all of us. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a rural or urban issue. This is an issue that affects the business traveler and the leisure traveler. We must act to enhance competition and prevent further gridlock and delay in our aviation system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try and address these issues in the coming months.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Hollings, in introducing the Aviation Competition Restoration Act. This legislation would give the Department of Transportation additional authority to review airline industry mergers and to enhance competition and access at dominated hub airports. If Congress does not act quickly to address the problems of industry consolidation and the reduction in meaningful competition, consumers will suffer as air fares inevitably increase and choices decline. Not since deregulation of the airline industry have we faced such a critical point in the history of air transportation in this country. We are closer than ever to seeing an industry totally dominated by three mega-airlines. Last year, United proposed purchasing US Airways. Earlier this year, American Airlines announced that it would purchase a faltering TWA and join with United to carve up US Airways. Since then, Delta and Continental have talked about some type of combination if the other mergers occur. These developments do not bode well for consumers. I recognize that there may be some benefits to these mergers. But the harm that will be inflicted on consumers far outweighs any gains. As the number of competitors dwindles, air travelers are almost certain to get squeezed. The Commerce Committee has held numerous hearings since the first deal was announced. I continue to believe that these proposals are not good for the consumer. Last year, the Commerce Committee approved a Senate Resolution expressing deep concern about the proposed United-US Airways deal. Expressions of concern are no longer enough. We must act to ensure that the Executive Branch has the tools to thoroughly evaluate these proposals and their effect on competition. We must also give them the tools to effectuate a more competitive environment. The Airline Competition Restoration Act would give the Department the authority to ensure that carriers have competitive access to critical airport markets by reallocating gates, facilities and other assets used or controlled by an air carrier prior to approving a merger or in other non-competitive circumstances. This bill is just one piece of a potential solution to the tremendous problems that air travelers face on a daily basis. More people are flying now than ever before. That means that more people are affected by the lack of capacity, antiquated air traffic control, and over scheduling that continue to plague aviation travel. We had 674 million people fly last year. That number is expected to reach one billion within 10 years. One billion air travelers in a system that has basically reached gridlock today should be of great concern to all of us. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a rural or urban issue. This is an issue that affects the business traveler and the leisure traveler. We must act to enhance competition and prevent further gridlock and delay in our aviation system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try and address these issues in the coming months.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. McCain pertaining to the introduction of S. 397 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a bill at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize two rounds of U.S. military installation realignment and closures to occur in 2003 and 2005. I am pleased to have Senators Levin, Hagel, Lieberman, Kyl, Reed, Kohl, Voinovich, Feingold, Jeffords and DeWine as co-sponsors of this bill. Although I would prefer to say that this is a new idea--it isn't. In 1970, the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, ``Fithugh Commission'') made reference to ``consolidation of military activities at fewer installations would contribute to more efficient operations and would produce substantial savings.'' In 1983, the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, ``Grace Commission'' made strong recommendations for military base closures. In 1997, the Quadrennial Defense Review recommended that, even after four base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, the Armed Forces ``must shed excess infrastructure.'' Likewise, the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative and the National Defense Panel ``strongly urged Congress and the Department of Defense to move quickly to restore the base realignment and closure, BRAC, process.'' Mr. President, we have too many military bases. The cold war is over. We will never have a requirement for as many bases as we have today. Clearly we could save, according to most conservative estimates, somewhere between $3 and $4 billion a year of taxpayer dollars that are now expended unnecessarily on keeping military bases open. The Congressional Budget Office, former Secretaries Dick Cheney and William Cohen, nearly all the Service Chiefs and other respected defense experts have been consistent in their plea that the Pentagon be permitted to divest themselves of excess infrastructure beyond what was eliminated during the prior rounds of base closings. Through the end of 1998, the Pentagon had closed 97 major bases in the United States after four previous rounds of BRAC. Since then, it has closed none. Moreover, the savings from closing additional unneeded bases should be used for force modernization purposes. We have heard over the last several years of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of plunging readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain or recruit the personnel we need. As a result of this realization, there has been a groundswell of support in Congress for the Armed Forces, including a number of pay, retirement and medical benefit initiatives and the promise of a significant increase in defense spending. All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help rebuild our military, but we must not forget that much of it will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it is unconscionable that some would not look to the billions of dollars to be saved by base realignment and closure. Only 30 percent of the defense budget funds combat forces, while the remaining 70 percent is devoted to support functions such as bases. Continuing to squander precious dollars in this manner will make it impossible for us to adequately modernize our forces for the future. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the military's infrastructure. We cannot sit idly by and throw money and ideas at the problem when part of the solution is staring us in the face. This proposed legislation offers a significant change to present law. Under this legislation, privatization in-place would be permitted only when explicitly recommended by the Commission. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense must consider local government input in preparing his list of desired base closures. Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous closure rounds exceed total costs to date. Department of Defense figures suggest previous base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 billion through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003 and $6.1 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save $20 billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for service members. Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, Louisiana benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S. about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced. In Charleston, South Carolina, where the number of defense job losses, as a percentage of the work force, was greater than at any other base closure location, 23 major entities are reusing the former Navy facilities and providing more than 3,300 jobs and another 13 more civilian industrial applications are pending adding soon even more newly created jobs to that number. Additionally, roughly 75 percent of the 6 million square feet of leasable space on the base is occupied. This is comparable to the successes in my home state of Arizona with the closure of Williams Air Force Base in the Phoenix East Valley. This is not to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive. We can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we do not need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology. We must finish the job we started by authorizing these two final rounds of base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this critical bill and to work diligently throughout the year to put aside local politics for what is clearly in the best interest of our military forces. Mr. President, I believe this measure is long overdue. I believe the additional $3 to $4 billion a year we could save by closing unnecessary bases could be used for the betterment of the quality of life of our men and women in the military. I believe it is hard to understand why, when the overwhelming majority of outside opinion, whether it be liberal or conservative organizations that are watchdogs of our defense policies and programs, all agree we have too many bases. We needed these bases during the cold war and we needed them very badly. They obviously contributed enormously to our ability to win the cold war. No one envisions future threats that would require the number of bases that are part of our military establishment today. I hope that the chairmen of the Armed Services Committee in past years who have strongly opposed base closing rounds will now join with me and others in seeing this legislation through the Armed Services Committee and to the floor of the Senate. It makes sense. I believe that the record is replete with examples of bases that have been closed which ultimately after a period of a few years have ended up of greater benefit to the surrounding communities than when the bases were military bases. But more importantly than that, we simply can't afford some of them as we make the tough decisions and follow the President's guidance on the fundamental reevaluation of our systems technology and weapons systems that we need to make in order to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war era. A part of that is to make available as much funding as possible not only for the quality of life of the men and women in the military but for our ability to develop a viable missile defense system, and to bring to our military the best equipment that this Nation's technology can provide. I hope we will move on this issue. I anticipate, hopefully, that the administration will also, again as past administrations have, support another round of base closings. I ask unanimous consent the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will allow our communities and churches to benefit from low-power radio service. Mr. President, low-power FM radio service provides community based organizations, churches, and other non-profit groups with a new, affordable opportunity to reach out to the public, helping to promote a greater awareness of local issues important to our communities. As such, low-power FM is supported by many national and local organizations who seek to provide the public with increased sources of news and perspectives in an otherwise increasingly consolidated medium. Last Congress, special interests forces opposed to low-power FM radio, most notably the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio, mounted a vigorous behind-the-scenes campaign to kill low-power FM radio. And unfortunately, these special interests succeeded in attaching an appropriations rider in the dead of the night--without a single debate on the floor of the Senate--that effectively did just that. Mr. President, the Low Power Radio Act of 2001 seeks to remedy this derailment of the democratic process. The Low Power Radio Act of 2001 will allow the FCC to license low-power FM radio service, while at the same time protecting existing full-power stations from interference. Specifically, the legislation directs the FCC--the expert agency with the experience and engineering resources to make such a determination-- to determine which, if any, low-power radio stations are causing interference to existing full-power stations, and determine what the low-power FM station must do to alleviate it. Thus, this legislation strikes a fair balance by allowing non-interfering low-power FM stations to operate without further delay, while affecting only those low-power stations that the FCC finds to be causing harmful interference in their actual, everyday operations. This is totally consistent with the fact that low-power FM is a secondary service which, by law, must cure any interference caused to any primary, full- power service. This legislation will provide an efficient and effective means to detect and resolve harmful interference. By providing a procedural remedy that authorizes the FCC to impose damages on frivolous complaints, the bill will discourage the creation of low-power stations most likely to cause harmful interference while at the same time discouraging full-power broadcasters from making unwarranted interference claims. In the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but, most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Low Power Radio Act of 2001. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill to authorize two additional base realignment and closure rounds be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize two rounds of U.S. military installation realignment and closures to occur in 2003 and 2005. I am pleased to have Senators Levin, Hagel, Lieberman, Kyl, Reed, Kohl, Voinovich, Feingold, Jeffords and DeWine as co-sponsors of this bill. Although I would prefer to say that this is a new idea--it isn't. In 1970, the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, ``Fithugh Commission'') made reference to ``consolidation of military activities at fewer installations would contribute to more efficient operations and would produce substantial savings.'' In 1983, the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, ``Grace Commission'' made strong recommendations for military base closures. In 1997, the Quadrennial Defense Review recommended that, even after four base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, the Armed Forces ``must shed excess infrastructure.'' Likewise, the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative and the National Defense Panel ``strongly urged Congress and the Department of Defense to move quickly to restore the base realignment and closure, BRAC, process.'' Mr. President, we have too many military bases. The cold war is over. We will never have a requirement for as many bases as we have today. Clearly we could save, according to most conservative estimates, somewhere between $3 and $4 billion a year of taxpayer dollars that are now expended unnecessarily on keeping military bases open. The Congressional Budget Office, former Secretaries Dick Cheney and William Cohen, nearly all the Service Chiefs and other respected defense experts have been consistent in their plea that the Pentagon be permitted to divest themselves of excess infrastructure beyond what was eliminated during the prior rounds of base closings. Through the end of 1998, the Pentagon had closed 97 major bases in the United States after four previous rounds of BRAC. Since then, it has closed none. Moreover, the savings from closing additional unneeded bases should be used for force modernization purposes. We have heard over the last several years of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of plunging readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain or recruit the personnel we need. As a result of this realization, there has been a groundswell of support in Congress for the Armed Forces, including a number of pay, retirement and medical benefit initiatives and the promise of a significant increase in defense spending. All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help rebuild our military, but we must not forget that much of it will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it is unconscionable that some would not look to the billions of dollars to be saved by base realignment and closure. Only 30 percent of the defense budget funds combat forces, while the remaining 70 percent is devoted to support functions such as bases. Continuing to squander precious dollars in this manner will make it impossible for us to adequately modernize our forces for the future. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the military's infrastructure. We cannot sit idly by and throw money and ideas at the problem when part of the solution is staring us in the face. This proposed legislation offers a significant change to present law. Under this legislation, privatization in-place would be permitted only when explicitly recommended by the Commission. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense must consider local government input in preparing his list of desired base closures. Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous closure rounds exceed total costs to date. Department of Defense figures suggest previous base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 billion through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003 and $6.1 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save $20 billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for service members. Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, Louisiana benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S. about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced. In Charleston, South Carolina, where the number of defense job losses, as a percentage of the work force, was greater than at any other base closure location, 23 major entities are reusing the former Navy facilities and providing more than 3,300 jobs and another 13 more civilian industrial applications are pending adding soon even more newly created jobs to that number. Additionally, roughly 75 percent of the 6 million square feet of leasable space on the base is occupied. This is comparable to the successes in my home state of Arizona with the closure of Williams Air Force Base in the Phoenix East Valley. This is not to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive. We can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we do not need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology. We must finish the job we started by authorizing these two final rounds of base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this critical bill and to work diligently throughout the year to put aside local politics for what is clearly in the best interest of our military forces. Mr. President, I believe this measure is long overdue. I believe the additional $3 to $4 billion a year we could save by closing unnecessary bases could be used for the betterment of the quality of life of our men and women in the military. I believe it is hard to understand why, when the overwhelming majority of outside opinion, whether it be liberal or conservative organizations that are watchdogs of our defense policies and programs, all agree we have too many bases. We needed these bases during the cold war and we needed them very badly. They obviously contributed enormously to our ability to win the cold war. No one envisions future threats that would require the number of bases that are part of our military establishment today. I hope that the chairmen of the Armed Services Committee in past years who have strongly opposed base closing rounds will now join with me and others in seeing this legislation through the Armed Services Committee and to the floor of the Senate. It makes sense. I believe that the record is replete with examples of bases that have been closed which ultimately after a period of a few years have ended up of greater benefit to the surrounding communities than when the bases were military bases. But more importantly than that, we simply can't afford some of them as we make the tough decisions and follow the President's guidance on the fundamental reevaluation of our systems technology and weapons systems that we need to make in order to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war era. A part of that is to make available as much funding as possible not only for the quality of life of the men and women in the military but for our ability to develop a viable missile defense system, and to bring to our military the best equipment that this Nation's technology can provide. I hope we will move on this issue. I anticipate, hopefully, that the administration will also, again as past administrations have, support another round of base closings. I ask unanimous consent the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill to authorize two additional base realignment and closure rounds be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a legislative fellow, Navy Lieutenant Commander Dell Bull, be granted floor privileges during consideration to amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will allow our communities and churches to benefit from low-power radio service. Mr. President, low-power FM radio service provides community based organizations, churches, and other non-profit groups with a new, affordable opportunity to reach out to the public, helping to promote a greater awareness of local issues important to our communities. As such, low-power FM is supported by many national and local organizations who seek to provide the public with increased sources of news and perspectives in an otherwise increasingly consolidated medium. Last Congress, special interests forces opposed to low-power FM radio, most notably the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio, mounted a vigorous behind-the-scenes campaign to kill low-power FM radio. And unfortunately, these special interests succeeded in attaching an appropriations rider in the dead of the night--without a single debate on the floor of the Senate--that effectively did just that. Mr. President, the Low Power Radio Act of 2001 seeks to remedy this derailment of the democratic process. The Low Power Radio Act of 2001 will allow the FCC to license low-power FM radio service, while at the same time protecting existing full-power stations from interference. Specifically, the legislation directs the FCC--the expert agency with the experience and engineering resources to make such a determination-- to determine which, if any, low-power radio stations are causing interference to existing full-power stations, and determine what the low-power FM station must do to alleviate it. Thus, this legislation strikes a fair balance by allowing non-interfering low-power FM stations to operate without further delay, while affecting only those low-power stations that the FCC finds to be causing harmful interference in their actual, everyday operations. This is totally consistent with the fact that low-power FM is a secondary service which, by law, must cure any interference caused to any primary, full- power service. This legislation will provide an efficient and effective means to detect and resolve harmful interference. By providing a procedural remedy that authorizes the FCC to impose damages on frivolous complaints, the bill will discourage the creation of low-power stations most likely to cause harmful interference while at the same time discouraging full-power broadcasters from making unwarranted interference claims. In the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but, most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Low Power Radio Act of 2001. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the nearly 280 million Americans in this country, today I am introducing the American Voting Standards and Technology Act. After one of the closest and most contested elections in our Nation's history, Americans want to have complete confidence in the electoral process. We can accomplish that goal by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions, and by ensuring that every vote is counted and recorded accurately. The key to achieving meaningful reform and to restoring Americans' faith in government, is finding both a short-term and a long-term solution to the widespread abuses of the past election. I have devised a two-pronged strategy toward realizing these necessary changes in our electoral system. First, on January 22, Senator Feingold and I introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This measure bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on electioneering ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger election laws. I look forward to bringing campaign finance reform back to the floor next month. The bill that I am introducing today represents the second part of my electoral reform strategy. One of the most flagrant violations of our democratic electoral process was highlighted this past November by the overwhelming number of precincts who reported voting machine flaws. This is an embarrassment to our democracy. The American Voting Standards and Technology Act was written to directly address the root of these voting controversies--the actual machines. In the 2000 election, pre-scored punch-card ballots were used by one in three voters. These archaic ``votomatic'' machines, engineered in the 1960's, continue to be employed throughout the country, yet their ability to accurately record voters is questionable. In 1988, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, recommended the elimination of prescored ballot cards, but this recommendation was unfortunately never heeded. To compound the problems with pre-scored punch cards, numerous studies reveal that throughout the country, ballots cast by African Americans were nullified at a much higher rate than those of Caucasians. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses old punch-card voting machines, one of every 16 ballots for president was invalidated, while two largely white neighboring counties, Cobb and Gwinnett, using more modern equipment had a rate of 1 in 200. Similar patterns were found in Florida and Illinois. We cannot encourage and expect every American to vote if we ignore the inequalities that are inherent in our entire voting system. The National Association of Secretaries of States recently issued fifteen recommendations aimed at avoiding the problems of last year's presidential election. The resolution recommends that States: Ensure equal access to the election system for the elderly, disabled, and minority communities; modernize voting machines and equipment; and conduct aggressive voter education and outreach programs. The resolution also advocates that Congress authorize an update of the voluntary federal voting standards and fund the development of voluntary management standards for each voting system. Senator Hollings and I have written the American Voting Standards and Technology Act in response to these recommendations. This legislation that we are introducing today has three targets: First, it directs NIST to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure the accuracy and validation of the voting process. Second, it authorizes matching grants to State agencies to purchase new or rehabilitated voting equipment to improve the ability of the public to cast a timely and accurate vote for the candidate of their choice. Finally, it authorizes grants throughout the Department of Commerce to State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. Both Senator Hollings and I have been working closely with NIST to begin this process now so that the next election will not bring the same confusion and frustration at the polls. How can we encourage young Americans to vote if they believe their vote may not be counted? We must modernize our voting machinery and improve our voting process without barraging the States and local governments with excessive rules and regulations. The American Voting Standards and Technology Act accomplishes these goals.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bicameral piece of legislation with my colleague Representative DeMint ensuring that every American worker is provided with honest information about the financial status of the Social Security program, including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. It is our obligation to talk straight with working Americans about the true financial status of the Social Security program. Under the current system, hard working Americans--young and old--are not receiving straight, honest information regarding the actual financial status of the Social Security program, including how much it is receiving in payroll taxes and how much is needed to give promised benefits to seniors. It is our obligation to ensure that all Americans are provided with accurate information regarding exactly when the Social Security program will no longer have sufficient funds for paying full benefits. Furthermore, we must begin providing working Americans with accurate, easy to understand information regarding the average rate of return they can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program. It is only fair to be straight with everyone and let them know the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind my colleagues of the very precarious financial condition of the entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' retirement planning. The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must stop raiding the Trust Funds to waste retirement dollars on more government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the American people with a common obligation to protect their interests. We have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without putting an unfair burden on today and tomorrow's workers. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bicameral piece of legislation with my colleague Representative DeMint ensuring that every American worker is provided with honest information about the financial status of the Social Security program, including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. It is our obligation to talk straight with working Americans about the true financial status of the Social Security program. Under the current system, hard working Americans--young and old--are not receiving straight, honest information regarding the actual financial status of the Social Security program, including how much it is receiving in payroll taxes and how much is needed to give promised benefits to seniors. It is our obligation to ensure that all Americans are provided with accurate information regarding exactly when the Social Security program will no longer have sufficient funds for paying full benefits. Furthermore, we must begin providing working Americans with accurate, easy to understand information regarding the average rate of return they can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program. It is only fair to be straight with everyone and let them know the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind my colleagues of the very precarious financial condition of the entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' retirement planning. The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must stop raiding the Trust Funds to waste retirement dollars on more government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the American people with a common obligation to protect their interests. We have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without putting an unfair burden on today and tomorrow's workers. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the nearly 280 million Americans in this country, today I am introducing the American Voting Standards and Technology Act. After one of the closest and most contested elections in our Nation's history, Americans want to have complete confidence in the electoral process. We can accomplish that goal by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions, and by ensuring that every vote is counted and recorded accurately. The key to achieving meaningful reform and to restoring Americans' faith in government, is finding both a short-term and a long-term solution to the widespread abuses of the past election. I have devised a two-pronged strategy toward realizing these necessary changes in our electoral system. First, on January 22, Senator Feingold and I introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This measure bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on electioneering ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger election laws. I look forward to bringing campaign finance reform back to the floor next month. The bill that I am introducing today represents the second part of my electoral reform strategy. One of the most flagrant violations of our democratic electoral process was highlighted this past November by the overwhelming number of precincts who reported voting machine flaws. This is an embarrassment to our democracy. The American Voting Standards and Technology Act was written to directly address the root of these voting controversies--the actual machines. In the 2000 election, pre-scored punch-card ballots were used by one in three voters. These archaic ``votomatic'' machines, engineered in the 1960's, continue to be employed throughout the country, yet their ability to accurately record voters is questionable. In 1988, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, recommended the elimination of prescored ballot cards, but this recommendation was unfortunately never heeded. To compound the problems with pre-scored punch cards, numerous studies reveal that throughout the country, ballots cast by African Americans were nullified at a much higher rate than those of Caucasians. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses old punch-card voting machines, one of every 16 ballots for president was invalidated, while two largely white neighboring counties, Cobb and Gwinnett, using more modern equipment had a rate of 1 in 200. Similar patterns were found in Florida and Illinois. We cannot encourage and expect every American to vote if we ignore the inequalities that are inherent in our entire voting system. The National Association of Secretaries of States recently issued fifteen recommendations aimed at avoiding the problems of last year's presidential election. The resolution recommends that States: Ensure equal access to the election system for the elderly, disabled, and minority communities; modernize voting machines and equipment; and conduct aggressive voter education and outreach programs. The resolution also advocates that Congress authorize an update of the voluntary federal voting standards and fund the development of voluntary management standards for each voting system. Senator Hollings and I have written the American Voting Standards and Technology Act in response to these recommendations. This legislation that we are introducing today has three targets: First, it directs NIST to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure the accuracy and validation of the voting process. Second, it authorizes matching grants to State agencies to purchase new or rehabilitated voting equipment to improve the ability of the public to cast a timely and accurate vote for the candidate of their choice. Finally, it authorizes grants throughout the Department of Commerce to State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. Both Senator Hollings and I have been working closely with NIST to begin this process now so that the next election will not bring the same confusion and frustration at the polls. How can we encourage young Americans to vote if they believe their vote may not be counted? We must modernize our voting machinery and improve our voting process without barraging the States and local governments with excessive rules and regulations. The American Voting Standards and Technology Act accomplishes these goals.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. In conclusion, we would like to urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. The Internet offers us a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to important information about their government. We are sure you agree that a well-informed electorate can best govern our great country. Exhibit 1 Brand & Frulla, Washington, DC, February 6, 2001. Hon. John McCain, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Washington, DC. Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to address the provisions of a draft Senate Resolution which I understand you intend to introduce directing the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to provide Internet access to certain public congressional and Congressional Research Service documents. This resolution is substantially the same as a bill you introduced in 1998 to make certain of the same documents available on the Internet. By letter dated January 27, 1998, I commented extensively on the impact of this substantially identical legislation upon applicability of the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const., art. I Sec. 6, cl. 1, to CRS products. I concluded then, and reaffirm that nothing in the resolution will alter or modify applicability of the Speech or Debate Clause protections to CRS products. There is one sense in which your revised resolution may actually strengthen the protections of the Clause for CRS products. By lodging responsibility in the Sergeant-at-Arms for providing access, you have retained in a legislative officer, as opposed to the CRS, the power to make determinations concerning accessibility. The Sergeant-at- Arms, is a ``[r]anking nonmember'' of the Senate and one of the statutory ``officers of the Congress,'' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 128 (1975) and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 60-1(b) and there can be, therefore, no doubt about the Senate's intent to repose in one of its officers the power to control its privileges. In doing so, you have, as a practical matter as well, given the Senate more direct control over access to CRS matters. See United States v. Hoffa, 205 F. Supp. 710, 723 (S.D. Fla. 1962) (cert. denied sub nom Hoffa v. Lieb, 371 U.S. 892 (invocation of legislative privilege by the United States Senate conclusive upon judicial branch). Given that any putative litigant seeking to obtain privileged CRS documents would have to actually serve process upon the Seregeant-at- Arms to obtain documents under the revised resolution, it is even less likely under the revised resolution that a party could obtain disclosure of such documents. Sincerely, Stanley M. Brand.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a resolution to make selected Congressional Research Service products, lobbyist disclosure reports, and Senate gift disclosure forms available over the Internet for the American people. This bipartisan legislation is sponsored by Senators Leahy, Lott and Lieberman. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is well known for producing high-quality reports and issue briefs that are concise, factual, and unbiased--a rarity in Washington. Many of us have used these products to make decisions on a wide variety of legislative proposals considering issues as diverse as Amtrak reform, the future of the Internet, health care reform, and tax policy. Also, we routinely send these products to our constituents in order to help them understand the important issues of our time. My colleagues and I believe that it is important that the public should have access to this CRS information. The American public will pay $73.4 million to fund CRS' operations for the fiscal year 2001. The material covered in this resolution is not confidential or classified, and the public should be able to see that their money is well spent. The Senate will serve two crucial functions by allowing the public to access this information over the Internet. First, it will help to fight a growing public cynicism about our government. According to a January 10-14, 2001, Gallup poll, the American public listed dissatisfaction with the Congress, government leadership, and the government in general as one of the ``most important problems facing the country today.'' By making these unbiased documents available online, the Senate will allow the public to see the factors that influence our decisions and votes. These documents will provide the public a more accurate view of the Congressional decision-making, and dispel some of the notions about Congress that create this cynicism. In addition, the Senate will serve the important function of informing their constituents by making these CRS products available online. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise, accurate summary of issues that concern them. As their elected representatives, we should strive to promote a better informed and educated public. Educated voters are best able to make decisions and petition their legislators on how to accurately represent them. I would like to point out that these products are already available on the Internet. ``Black market'' private vendors are charging up to $49 for a single report. Other web sites have outdated CRS products on them. It is not fair for the American people to have to pay a third party for out-of-date products for which they have already footed the bill. This resolution is different from legislation that I authored last Congress. The House of Representatives has started a pilot program to make CRS products electronically available to the public. This resolution is drafted to set up a system identical to the House program. The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms will establish and maintain the database of CRS documents through the Senate Computer Center. The public will only be able to access these documents through Senators or Senate Committee's web pages. This system will allow Senators and Committee Chairmen to be able to choose which documents are made available to the public through their web page. This change will ensure that only the Senate is directly involved in making CRS products available to the public. This change to the bill will ensure that the CRS' mission is not altered in any way, and that it cannot be open to liability suits. I ask unanimous consent to include a letter from Mr. Stanley M. Brand, a former General Counsel to the House of Representatives, who states that ``nothing in the resolution will alter or modify applicability of the Speech or Debate Clause protections to CRS products.'' In addition, Senators will be able to inform their constituents about how we are helping them here in Washington. This resolution also includes other safeguards to ensure that CRS is protected from public interference. Confidential information and reports done for confidential research requests will not be made available to the public. The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms may remove the names of CRS employees from these products to prevent the public from distracting CRS employees. In addition, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms may remove copyrighted information from the publicly-available reports. In the past, we have been informed that CRS may not have permission to release copyrighted information over the Internet. Currently, reports with copyrighted information may be posted over the House system. However, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms may remove this information if it is necessary in the future. Finally, we are aware that cost concerns have been raised about versions of this legislation introduced in earlier Congresses. Our understanding is that the House system of distribution has been achieved at a relatively low cost. This resolution will eliminate the cost burden to CRS by shifting the operation and maintenance of the database over to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. In addition, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to ask the General Accounting Office to evaluate the program after one year to examine how to make the operations more cost-effective. The resolution also requires the Senate Office of Public Records to place lobbyist disclosure forms and Senate gift disclosure forms on the Internet. We have already voted to make this information available to the public. Unfortunately, the public can only get access to this information through an office in the Hart building. These provisions will allow our constituents throughout the country to access this information. It is important to recognize the Senate Office of Public Records for setting up a system of online lobbying registration. The Senate can aid this office in its groundbreaking work by enacting this resolution. This legislation has been endorsed by many groups including AOL Time Warner, the Congressional Accountability Project, Intel, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Library Association, Real Networks, Inc. and the National Federation of Press Women. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this morning the Commerce Committee heard testimony from the Department of Transportation Inspector General on the airlines' efforts to meet their voluntary Airline Customer Service Commitment. The IG reported that the airlines had made progress in their customer service areas. He also noted that the airlines were deficient in many areas of their commitment. The IG recommended that Congress take some measures to ensure that the airlines continue to make progress on the passenger service front. To that end, I am introducing the Airline Customer Service Improvement Act, along with Senators Hollings, Hutchison, and Wyden. This bill implements the recommendations set forth by the Inspector General in his final report. Specifically, the bill requires each air carrier to incorporate the voluntary Airline Customer Service Commitment into its contract of carriage. In addition, the bill requires each air carrier to specifically disclose information recommended by Mr. Mead, such as the on-time performance rates of specific flights and the airlines' policy with respect to overnight accommodations. The bill also directs the Department of Transportation to raise the compensation required for passengers involuntarily bumped from a flight. This regulation has not been updated in more than 20 years. The bill also directs the Department of Transportation to change the way it calculates lost and mishandled baggage statistics, so that these statistics will more accurately represent the problems that passengers face. Finally, consistent with the IG's recommendations, the bill requires the airlines to report on their efforts to establish targets for reducing the number of chronically-delayed and canceled flights, and establishing a system passengers may use to determine if their flight has been delayed or canceled. In short, this legislation does not seek to legislate good customer service. This legislation seeks to provide the airlines and the Department of Transportation with the incentives to ensure that good customer service remains high on everyone's priority list. Let me make clear that this bill is just one small step towards fixing the system. This bill does not begin to address the many problems facing the airline industry. Capacity, congestion, antiquated air traffic control systems, and labor all have had detrimental effects on our system and, consequently, customer service. The Commerce Committee will continue to explore ways to improve the efficiency of our aviation system. We will all need to work together to fix the multitude of problems that airline customers face everyday. I look forward to working together with my fellow Senators on this and other ways to address the needs of our aviation system. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this morning the Commerce Committee heard testimony from the Department of Transportation Inspector General on the airlines' efforts to meet their voluntary Airline Customer Service Commitment. The IG reported that the airlines had made progress in their customer service areas. He also noted that the airlines were deficient in many areas of their commitment. The IG recommended that Congress take some measures to ensure that the airlines continue to make progress on the passenger service front. To that end, I am introducing the Airline Customer Service Improvement Act, along with Senators Hollings, Hutchison, and Wyden. This bill implements the recommendations set forth by the Inspector General in his final report. Specifically, the bill requires each air carrier to incorporate the voluntary Airline Customer Service Commitment into its contract of carriage. In addition, the bill requires each air carrier to specifically disclose information recommended by Mr. Mead, such as the on-time performance rates of specific flights and the airlines' policy with respect to overnight accommodations. The bill also directs the Department of Transportation to raise the compensation required for passengers involuntarily bumped from a flight. This regulation has not been updated in more than 20 years. The bill also directs the Department of Transportation to change the way it calculates lost and mishandled baggage statistics, so that these statistics will more accurately represent the problems that passengers face. Finally, consistent with the IG's recommendations, the bill requires the airlines to report on their efforts to establish targets for reducing the number of chronically-delayed and canceled flights, and establishing a system passengers may use to determine if their flight has been delayed or canceled. In short, this legislation does not seek to legislate good customer service. This legislation seeks to provide the airlines and the Department of Transportation with the incentives to ensure that good customer service remains high on everyone's priority list. Let me make clear that this bill is just one small step towards fixing the system. This bill does not begin to address the many problems facing the airline industry. Capacity, congestion, antiquated air traffic control systems, and labor all have had detrimental effects on our system and, consequently, customer service. The Commerce Committee will continue to explore ways to improve the efficiency of our aviation system. We will all need to work together to fix the multitude of problems that airline customers face everyday. I look forward to working together with my fellow Senators on this and other ways to address the needs of our aviation system. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island calls for a study of the needs of the natural gas pipelines in New England. I think it is perfectly appropriate and acceptable to both sides. I believe there is no further debate on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.